Reply #73: Depth? "Uphold First Amendment"? Sigh. Are you a professor of law? Or just curious.

[Piewhacket]

Why not ask it from a different point of view.
It is axiomatic there can be no right without a remedy, professor.
So why not ask a lawyer's question? Ask "What if they don't?"

see before:
Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services, Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (Nassau Cty. 1995)

then after:
Doe v. America Online, Inc., 783 So. 2d 1010 (Fla.), cert. denied, 151 L. Ed. 2d 148 (2001)

ATT (SBC) hardly worries about rule of law or courts. But arguendo,
if ATT steps out of the role of common carrier by controlling content, then what would
they be? Why would they want to do that? Who else would they piss off (net neutrality).
Wouldn't forces start to array against them?

I'm actually a bit worried they are being so nice. They aren't actually nice, so that means
they are nervous about something reeeeally bad. I shudder to consider what that might be
:hide:

In the end I'm saying its a political, not a legal problem. A very nasty, dangerous political problem.
And telecom immunity in the face of CLEAR AND LONGSTANDING LEGAL PRECEDENT of criminality
for the surveillance they have been doing signals the magnitude of the problem.